Mixed record for Union Leader nod

Newt Gingrich got an important boost when he won the Union Leader’s endorsement on Sunday — but the paper’s track record shows he’s still far from a lock in the first primary state.

The good news for the former House speaker is that New Hampshire’s most influential newspaper was an early booster of Ronald Reagan and Pat Buchanan ahead of their primary wins, and four years ago, threw its weight behind John McCain as he resurrected his campaign with a victory in the state.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Union Leader editor on Romney

POLITICO 44

But those are the only three times since 1972 the newspaper has endorsed the eventual primary winner.

Instead, the paper has a history of supporting long-shot conservatives over the establishment candidates who go on to win: Former Ohio Rep. John Ashbrook got its backing in 1972, and took just 10 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary against Richard Nixon. In 1988, the paper endorsed former Delaware Gov. Pete DuPont over then-Vice President George H.W. Bush, former Sen. Bob Dole, former Rep. Jack Kemp and broadcaster Pat Robertson. DuPont received just 11 percent of the vote.

The Union Leader went for Steve Forbes in 2000. That year, publisher Joe McQuaid wrote that Forbes “believes in what he says and he says it. His two main rivals, on the other hand, seem much more interested in what the news media say about them than in their own message.”

Forbes came in third in the state’s primary, behind George W. Bush and McCain.

That’s not to say Sunday’s endorsement won’t move votes for Gingrich: The paper, and its publisher, McQuaid, are among the most respected conservative voices for their unmatched readership in the state. And more than in just a one-time front-page feature, the Union Leader tends to interweave its endorsement with its news coverage, bolstering its pick and attacking the other candidates. This will most likely be in addition to the opinion columns that tend to run in the paper echoing the official choice.

In 2008, that support helped propel McCain — and bury Romney, whom the paper attacked endlessly in its news articles, as well as many subsequent columns and editorials.

And though Romney waged a charm offensive on the paper in the hopes of escaping at least that fate this time around, the newspaper used a similar argument in picking Gingrich over him as it did in picking McCain.

In its endorsement of McCain, the paper heralded McCain as “trusted to make informed decisions based on the best interests of his country, come hell or high water.”

As for Gingrich, the Union Leader went with him because “We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people and best equipped for the job.”

Union Leader editorial page editor Drew Cline, who appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, drew a parallel between the Manchester paper’s endorsement of McCain in 2008 and its endorsement of Gingrich in the 2012 GOP contest. Asked whether the influential Manchester paper would have endorsed Gingrich months ago, when his campaign received only single-digit support in the polls, Cline said:

“Well, we did that with John McCain in 2008, and it worked out pretty well. We consider the candidate overall; we don’t just look at the poll numbers.”

But picking a winner wasn’t the main interest, Cline explained.

“We’re not trying to attach our name to a winner,” he said. “That’s not really leading. That would do our readers a very big disservice.”

Anybody who thinks that Romney is concerned about the endorsement of this fish wrapper is mentally ill. They've only been right 3 times since 1972? If they were stock brokers or gamblers, they'd have been broke decades ago.

Newt is the flavor of the week. His ethics problems while speaker are coming back to haunt him, as well as his apparent lack of marital fidelity and his questionable lobbying activities.

If by some miracle he gets the GOP nod, it's only because the GOP has set the bar so low that anyone qualifies. Newt is polling from 2 to 12 points behind Obama in a hypothetical match up and that gap will only grow as his past catches up to him.

1. UL is describing someone else. That is not the Gingrich that we all know. 2. UL has only gotten 2 Gop nominees correct and only 1, Reagan, that became POTUS. 3. UL helped Obama get elected in 2008 by bad mouthing Romney everyday for months. 4. UL has actually helped Romney by putting the bullseye on Gingrich's back during these final weeks. 5. UL does not have time to endorse another candidate when the Newt that stole Christmas flavor fades. 6. UL will hopefully at least refrain from the bashing of Romney after January 3rd. 7. UL has increased the odds of Romney winning the NH Primary, GOP nomination and the 2012 general election.

This issue is not whether every candidate they endorsed eventually won the nomination - the issue is WHY did they fail to endorse Romney and whether those reasons will resonate with GOP primary voters in New Hampshire and across the country.

The specific reasons cited by the New Hampshire paper for taking a pass on Romney is that they believed HE WILL SAY ANYTHING HE THINKS THEY WANT TO HEAR TO GET ELECTED, and this showed a LACK OF LEADERSHIP quality to his candidacy because he had NO CORE BELIEFS he was willing to fight for if the issue was not popular in the polls. As president, that is non-starter for a conservative Republican, as many times conservative points of view will not be popular in the polls, and someone like Romney will CAVE TO POPULAR OPINION rather than do what Gingrich did on immigration and re-cast the issue based on conservative values that can appeal to a broader audience.

In fact, Gingrich is doing exactly what Obama has been doing his entire career but using conservative values rather than progressive values. Obama took a public stance against the Iraq war at the HEIGHT of the war's popularity not because he was a "peacenik", which would only get him support on the far left, but because of his re-casting of the issue as the "wrong" war that distracted us from the guy (Bin Laden) who attacked America. Obama's "wrong war" view became the mainstream view eventually, but it was clearly courageous and bold leadership at the time to advocate ending the war when most Americans supported it.

Gingrich's fairly conservative approach to immigration that focuses on border control and shipping everyone else back to Mexico that has not been here for 25 years and crime-free was "re-cast" using the family values rhetoric to appeal to BOTH conservative and moderates for what is essentially a very conservative immigration policy. Like Obama, Gingrich has learned that real leaders don't just follow every poll, they SHAPE THE POLLS and broaden the support for the conservative/progressive issue they are fighting for based on their leadership on the issues. The Union Leader clearly recognized this fact, and this is why Romney was rejected and Gingrich endorsed.

Why hasn't this been reported on Politico??? That the UL editor said it was between Perry and Gingrich? Great reporting... Politico... [sarc]

"In an interview on CNN, Union Leader editor page editor Andrew Cline said the paper narrowed down the candidates to a choice between Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Cline said the paper picked Gingrich because he had the political experience to enact much of his platform." Read full article here...

UL should have gone with Rick... I watched the c-span videos of all the candidates interviews and It was clear Rick was closely favored by UL... Newt not so much in the interview... however, they gave their reasoning for going with Newt. But I feel they made an error in their choice. Newt has too much baggage. The UL will still be favorable to Rick in their paper. Which is good for Rick Perry... not so much for Romney... if UL's 08 attacks on him are repeated in 2012. They destroyed him in 08.

Former Republican Speaker of the House Newton Leroy Gingrich lugs around almost as much baggage as a former candidate for the presidency lugged around before he won that office in 1992.

The chief difference between Gingrich and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton is that the former’s dirty linens will probably deny him the Republican nomination in 2012 and the latter’s less-fastidious Democrats elected him twice.

Both developments are damned shames.

Despite Democrat claims to be the Party of the People, which may have been true when they were led by FDR and the people were desperate and later involved in a war FDR manipulated, since at least 1964 the GOP has better reflected the dominant sentiment of Americans in all matters save failed social experiments.

Over the years, muddled-thinking wags have suggested that the best of all political worlds would see a Democrat in charge of domestic policy and a Republican conducting foreign affairs. Aside from the unconstitutionality of such a scenario, the country would be bankrupted by Democrats and so destitute we would be unable to function beyond our borders.

However, none of that speculation is relevant to a Newt Gingrich presidency since Republicans are more inclined to lose than to hold their noses and vote for a guy who isn’t perfect.

Newt is anything but perfect from a conservative point of view or from any other point of view, although he is nowhere near the insensitive ogre, the grinch the mainstream media has painted him . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1...

In its endorsement of McCain, the paper heralded McCain as “trusted to make informed decisions based on the best interests of his country, come hell or high water.”

And your "trusted" mccain picked the totally UNqualified sarah palin to be on his presidential ticket. How'd that work out for you? mccain wanted Lieberman but didn't have the b***s to do what he thought was right for the country; instead he obeyed the far right loons, such as billy kristol who wanted palin.

And now you're doing it again in this election. Shame, shame cline and mcquaid!

Based on history this endorsement is worthless. It actually appears to be good news for Romney.

I realize the Dems want Newt to be the GOP nominee. They know that Newt has a lot of baggage and that he has a tendency of saying the craziest things. Newt has a wonderful and important political imagination. However, it only takes one crazy idea to ruin a presidential run and Newt will provide plenty of them.

The media remembers that he had to resign as Speaker of the House in disgrace. He would sell a lot of papers.